Guess What? Letting Corps. Make Anonymous Unfettered Political Donations Quadrupled Contributions!

A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could not be banned from political spending during elections through either independent expenditures from corporations’ general funds or “electioneering communications,” i.e. political ads. Detractors cried out that it would let loose a flood of corporate cash into elections, and they were right. A new Public Citizen report shows that outside groups quadrupled their contributions during the last mid-term election from the previous, and we will never know exactly where a good deal of the money came from.

Miller-McCune:

Groups that didn’t disclose to the FEC any information about the sources of their money spent a combined $135.6 million (or 46 percent of the total).

Nearly half of the total, $138.5 million, came from just 10 groups. And seven of those organizations — including the ambiguously named American Action Network, American Future Fund and Americans for Job Security — provided no donor information.

That’s a bit different outcome from what the Supreme Court majority wrote in their opinion, which held that “with the advent of the Internet” citizens and shareholders would basically be able to Google all the information they would need and that would provide the necessary transparency.

The answer is obvious. Instead of complaining about corporations perverting our democracy, average Americans should buckle down and make make more money so they can out-contribute them.

Read the whole report here. (PDF)

Public Citizen Documents the Fallout of Pivotal U.S. Supreme Court Decision [Press Release]
Following the Money a Year After Citizens United [Miller-McCune]

RELATED
What If Corporations Really Were People, And Those People Were Jerks?

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. dwtomek says:

    Need to add Captain Obvious tag.

    • Ben Popken says:

      Thanks, I will!

    • Simon Barsinister says:

      Supreme Court Judges for sale, buy now get 9 for 1 !

    • Clearly says:

      Dear Consumerist,
      this is a terrible article. The title is false and the meaning inaccurate.

      You show no evidence to support your claim of unfettered donations leading to quadruple donations.

      Secondly, you are misunderstanding the recent court decision and grossly misrepresenting it.
      You refer to unfettered donations, but the decision concerned an entirely different matter – namely a corporation spending its own funds on political promotions.

      While it seems very popular to criticize large corporations – and often rightly so – it also remains true that a corporation is free to conduct its business in any lawful way it sees fit. If a corporation sees it to be in its own interests to support a particular electoral candidate or spend its fund on advertizing – then so be it.

      Citizens vote. Corporations do not.
      Courts interpret the law and set precent.
      Congress can change law.
      If you don’t like the congress and don’t like the main stream candidates, then go ahead and vote for an outsider or stand yourself.

      • Blueskylaw says:

        “Citizens vote. Corporations do not.”

        Corporations do vote, except their ballots are made from green paper.

      • YokoOhNo says:

        Hahahaha!!!

        What did you do last night, sleep? LOL While you were sleeping there were thousands of corporations devising methods to influence your life.

        Did you take a lunch todauy? The corporation didn’t, it spent that time devising ways to part you from your money..legally or illegally.

        Did you take your two weeks vacation this year> The corproation didn’t. While you were lounging on the beach they literally had THOUSANDS of people devising ways to increase their profits at your expense.

        Ever watch your kid play baseball? While you were wasting your time at the game the corporations were working to influence politicians so that they could have the law on their side when they need it…such as monopolizing cable tv, bailing out the banks and doing business with countries that are trying to degrade the USA.

        Keep on defending them because while you sleep, they devise.

  2. Judah says:

    This is what fascism is made of.

    • Cosmo_Kramer says:

      You’re totally right. Fascism is “made of” freedom.

    • Maximus Pectoralis says:

      One of the top donors on the list is the SEIU, which unlike these other PAC’s, uses strong-arm tactics and coercion to force its members to donate their money.

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/461286

      Sounds rather fascist to me.

      • Chaosium says:

        “which unlike these other PAC’s, uses strong-arm tactics and coercion to force its members to donate their money.

        Specious reasoning, that unions do and corporations don’t.

        • Maximus Pectoralis says:

          This behavior is a violation of federal law under normal circumstances, but the SEIU was given a pass for it. I’m quite sure if any company attempted for coerce its members into donating to political funds it would be facing a major lawsuit for violation of labor laws and election laws. It is not normal practice for private business to demand political donations for even its lowest-level employees, but it is very common in unions, at least from the dozens of union members I know and reports such as this.

          • Papa Bear says:

            Never belonged to a union, have you?

            • Maximus Pectoralis says:

              No and I hope I never am. But virtually all of my extended relatives are union activists and several acquaintances are as well. I also know people who are on the other side of the bargaining table. I have heard plenty of stories from both sides, and it usually sounds like a horrible disaster.

              • kabamm says:

                To all those who whinge about unions, all I have to say is that their working life would be miserable without them. Six day weeks, no paid vacation, no paid holidays, no health insurance, etc. Yee haw, party like it’s 1870.

                • Skyhawk says:

                  Sure, if you completely ignore the entire field of industrial psychology which was responsible for mandatory breaks, the 5 day work week and many of the other various policies that were shown to increase production and, thus, adopted.
                  Unions had nothing to do with it.

            • mindaika says:

              I did: the SEIU. In the three+ years I was a member, I never had any “strong-arm tactics” employed to get me to contribute anything. I’ll tell you what I DID have though:

              - Job security. Through union negotiations with my employer, if I got laid off, the employer had to rehire any laid-off union members before hiring new people
              – Better wages. Mine were about 35% higher than at my current, non-unionzed job.
              – Better health insurance. Again, union negotiators.

  3. Fuzz says:

    Dear Supreme Court. You don’t really understand how anything works, do you?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      As much as I love SCOTUS in terms of purpose, I will concur that they should not make decisions based on how they think technology works and how citizens use them. They are not qualified to judge where technology is leading us, and it shouldn’t be part of their job description.

      • GMurnane says:

        +1 technology is such a nuanced issue and in order to rule fairly a thorough understanding of technology is necessary. I doubt any of the middle-aged to old judges know very much about technology.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Truly, they SHOULD keep up to date on technology, but their primary goal needs to be “is this constitutiona?l” not “will this BECOME constitutional if we add a blender, or Google?”

          • JennQPublic says:

            You would think they would have the sense to do some research and talk to experts on various subjects that are related to rulings they have to make. Although, to be fair, anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming. I don’t think the core issue has anything to do with technology. Common sense should have told them that allowing anonymous unfettered donations from the wealthiest Americans would lead to an increase in donations.

            • indeeme says:

              I’m sure that common sense DID tell them that allowing anonymous unfettered donations from the wealthiest Americans would lead to an increase in donations. They just told us something else.

    • xrmb says:

      I guess there is a 220 year old piece of paper that has all the answers in it… and corps donating money to elections wasn’t part of it, therefor it has to allowed forever!

  4. costanza007 says:

    Soylent Corporations are people, except they can’t vote.

    • dwtomek says:

      With the legislation that they are now able to purchase…they will soon be able to vote.

      • Saltpork says:

        They vote with their political contributions.

        • costanza007 says:

          I’m going to agree with you first, that big amounts of money make a difference in advertising yourself or your candidate. BUT, the logic does not follow strictly that whoever (or whichever party) has the most money wins an election. You get a vote, unless you live in Chicago where you get a few.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            Or if you live in Pennsylvania where you get to vote in select New Jersey elections too (including free transportation and lunch courtesy of your favorite politician!)

    • Weighted Companion Cube says:

      Agree.

    • DerangedKitsune says:

      Why bother going through the whole pesky voting process when there’s the chance some peon of a citizen could derail your carefully select choice? Just wait till they’re in office and buy them then. One politician is much like another in that regard.

  5. obits3 says:

    Time to reopen the Human fund!

  6. VOIDMunashii says:

    Well colour me surprised. No one could possibly have seen this coming.

  7. nova3930 says:

    “average Americans should buckle down and make make more money so they can out-contribute them”

    No what “average Americans” should understand is that no one gives up their rights to free speech simply by exercising their rights to free assembly ie by forming a corporation.

    The amendment says “Congress shall make no law” not “Congress shall make no law except for these entities we don’t like politically.”

    And as far as the minority SCOTUS opinion goes, one should be faaar more scared of it. Reading it raised the hair on the back of my neck because it left WIDE open the possibility that things like books and political pamphlets could be banned simply because the gov’t dictated the entity publishing them was not allowed to speak on the matter.

    • Doncosmic says:

      Nothing was stopping people from donating before, therefore their first amendment rights were not being breached.

    • GMurnane says:

      I’m not sure how much I like the idea of corporations making anonymous donations, but I’m with you on the whole free speech issue.

      • alSeen says:

        The case had nothing to do with donations to political campaigns.

        • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

          Very well, I’ll play–what is your point of view regarding these anonymous donations?

          • Bill610 says:

            The decision doesn’t address donations to campaigns or parties–it permits independent expenditures, such as advocacy ads, not coordinated with campaigns. It seems that there’s a disinformation effort convincing people that because of this decision, corporations may now make unregulated contributions to candidates. This is not the case.

            Bear in mind that many of the corporations that were impacted by McCain-Feingold were specifically organized so that people could pool their resources to express their political beliefs; this was the case with Citizens United. Banning such activity essentially clears the field so that only those with the means to use their own money can express their beliefs–which is to say, the rich folks who own corporations that are seeking favors from the government.

    • paulthegeek says:

      Oh please. A corporation is not an “assembly” in the Constitutional sense and you know it.

      Let’s not forget: the corporation, as an institution, was conceived solely to avoid personal responsibility for poor business decisions. That is the ONLY reason businesses incorporate; so that the real human beings in charge can’t be held responsible if the business fails before it pays off its debts or if somebody dies as a direct result of a corporate decision or action.

      Allowing an imaginary entity like that to have unregulated access to our political process is easily one of the worst decisions our Supreme Court has ever made.

      Ever.

      • paulthegeek says:

        PS: It’s also one of the clearest examples of an “activist” judiciary we’ve ever seen.

        • Maximus Pectoralis says:

          If you want to see activist judiciary take a look at NJ Supreme Court. Particularly the “Abbott ruling” and “COAH”. It will blow your mind!

    • dwtomek says:

      The individuals who compose a corporation were never threatened with losing those rights.

    • Tim says:

      The people who assembled to form a corporation still have the same individual rights as every other individual.

      But, by the logic of your argument, if a corporation causes someone’s death, should the corporation go to jail? It’s a person, right?

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        My exact counterargument for the SCOTUS decision. They have effectively given corporations certain individual rights while simultaneously shielding them from other individuals’ responsibilities and consequences.

        In the end, corporations have more rights and live better than regular people.

        • Maximus Pectoralis says:

          This. I would generally consider myself moderate conservative / libertarian depending on whether it’s economic / social issues. This is kind of a combination of both. The biggest flaw in this thinking though is that corporations and PACs are given all of the benefit (ability to express ideas) with none of the responsibility (no disclosure of contributors). When I have contributed to political groups, my information has been made public as part of the disclosure process. Why should anyone be protected from this simply because they are part of a corporation? And IMO, the same thing should also apply to labor unions and other PAC groups.

  8. skwigger says:

    There’s nothing to stop a foreign government from creating a corporation purely to donate to US politicians.

  9. alSeen says:

    Guess what, that’s not what they ruled.

    The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”

    The case had nothing to do with political contributions. It had to do with corporations being able to make political speech. Specifically, it was about a group that had made a documentary about Hillary Clinton that was prohibited from showing it on TV.

    The Court was 100% correct in their decision.

    • paulthegeek says:

      Oh, I see. So the court’s decision affects that specific issue and has no effect on corporate political activity overall?

      And I suppose you think Roe v. Wade is just about one woman and her doctor…

      • alSeen says:

        Did you even read what I wrote?

        Again, the case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

        It was a ruling on political spending by the corporations, on their ability to buy advocacy ads.

        There is a huge difference.

        • paulthegeek says:

          Oh I read it. I also noticed what you DIDN’T write.

          If you’ll pardon the cliche, you’ve missed the forest for the trees. Yes, it is technically correct that THIS PARTICULAR DECISION was about spending on advocacy ads. But it has clearly had repercussions throughout our political landscape regarding corporate spending in politics.

          In focusing on the case itself, and harping on what the decision is and isn’t, you’re leaving a lot of relevant stuff out. In short, thank you for pointing out the technicalities of the decision. Now, what else ya got?

          • Rayonic says:

            But existing laws about contributions are still in effect. They didn’t accidentally nullify those laws when ruling on political advertisements. Your presumptions are incorrect.

            The most likely explanation is that these midterms inspired a lot more activity than the last one. Which isn’t surprising considering all the seats that changed hands (or came close to).

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I was actually on your side, disagreeing with the person who replied to your comment.

            Sad that you took comradery as adversarial. And then be condescending about it.

            Anything to argue about that?

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              …And then of course I realize you didn’t reply to me and I mis-viewed what tier your avatar was set in which indicates who you are replying to.

              And I feel like an ass…

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          You are correct, there is a difference. But the law you speak of is a tiger with no claws, since corporations simply donate to organizations who spend the money on their behalf.

          Different process, same result.

    • Tim says:

      Good job copying and pasting from Wikipedia. You forgot to copy and paste the part about independent expenditures. The struck-down part of the law prohibited electioneering communications AND independent expenditures from corporations’ general funds.

      You are 100% wrong.

      • alSeen says:

        Independent expenditures does not mean contributions to political campaigns. As the same wiki article says (yes it came from wiki, so what)

        The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

    • rooben says:

      RFA. Ben got it a little wrong too – it doesn’t say policial donations, it says political spending.
      Those of you saying that people were just a little excited and donated more this year – That wasn’t it.
      “Spending by outside groups jumped to $294.2 million in the 2010 election cycle from just $68.9 million in the 2006 cycle.” Not Donations – SPENDING. Exactly what the SCOTUS decision was about.

    • Bill610 says:

      Agreed. McCain-Feingold was overreaching–before he signed it, Bush even said he thought it was unconstitutional and would be overturned by the Court (which is why I thought Bush should have been impeached long before Iraq–he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, then declared a bill unconstitutional while signing it into law!). Like pretty much all “campaign finance reform” laws, it was really designed to protect incumbent politicians/parties.

      Bear in mind that Citizens United, like many other corporations that this law was designed to control, was not some industrial conglomerate trying to get favorable treatment by the government. It was a group of individuals who formed a corporation specifically to express their political views by producing a movie about Hilary Clinton–such corporations are a way for those of us who aren’t individually wealthy to pool our resources to exercise 1st Amendment rights. So it might be said that those who oppose the Citizens United decision are really against allowing ordinary people the right to express their opinions, reserving that instead to the rich people who, um, own industrial conglomerates.

  10. costanza007 says:

    So is the big problem here with the amounts or the anonymity?

    And does it suddenly soften everyone’s butthurt that the ruling by the Supreme Court applied this to corporations’ AND unions’ right to donate?

    • alSeen says:

      The case had nothing to do with donations. It was a ruling on the ability to purchase political advocacy ads.

      • Tim says:

        Wrong again. It was about electioneering communications and independent expenditures. Read up on it.

        • alSeen says:

          What exactly do you think “independent expenditures” are? Hint, they are not cash donations to political campaigns.

          • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

            We already know this. Your being coy by evading the obvious implications of the decision puzzles me.

            Again, these independent expenditures–the messages in advocacy or against certain candidates or policies…how are they paid for?

            • alSeen says:

              By corporations or people donating to whatever group is buying the ad.

              But that doesn’t matter. Look at the headline this article has “Guess What? Letting Corps. Make Anonymous Unfettered Political Donations Quadrupled Contributions!”

              As many of the comments on this article show, people seem to think that this ruling was about letting corporations give money directly to candidates. It wasn’t. That is a very important distinction to make.

              • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

                And again, you evade the question about (a) Corporations (who had lots of money that was useless to them under the old rules) now flooding the airwaves with these communications, or (b) how corporations, as non-human entities, can form other corporations (with enigmatic names such as American Action Fund, or Citizens United, or American Crossroads), who’s actual identity is cloaked, unlike “individuals” who contribute.

                But that doesn’t matter. Look at the headline this article has “Guess What? Letting Corps. Make Anonymous Unfettered Political Donations Quadrupled Contributions!

                “On the ground”, it is a distinction without a difference. Since you’re fond of the wiki, check out this one.

                Which assertion do you disagree with: that (a) corporations are now allowed to make anonymous, unfettered political donations, or that (b) their contributions quadrupled?

              • costanza007 says:

                Yeah we got confused by the words “Donations” and “donor” showing up in headlines and article quotes. I guess its not just the Consumerist comments which are lacking factual detail and sensible writing.

      • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

        Which get paid for with what, exactly?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Different process, same result.

    • Jasen says:

      It doesn’t soften my butthurt. I don’t want unions buying political favor either.

  11. E. Zachary Knight says:

    “The answer is obvious. Instead of complaining about corporations perverting our democracy, average Americans should buckle down and make make more money so they can out-contribute them.”

    Or voters can ignore the millions of ads that this money buys and vote based on actual positions and history of the politician.

    It does not take a lot of money to win an election, it takes voters who are not so lazy that they either a) vote for their party regardless of the person running under that party name or b) vote for the person with the better ads the day before the election.

    • Polish Engineer says:

      Not sure about this one man. You can have a wonderful product, but if you can’t advertise no one will ever know about it.

      In many states, the amount of effort, ie money, required to even get on the ballot is pretty substantial, if not prohibitive, to many people that would make excellent legislators.

      Let’s not forget that due to the insane amount of laws that now surround campaign finance it is almost impossible to proceed without some sort of legal counsel.

      The fact of the matter is the world we live in requires candidates to reach out to the electorate since it is too lazy to do its homework. So in theory, running for office should be cheap, but in reality that’s just not the case.

      • jesusofcool says:

        I agree with you, while I respect the original point to some degree. A lot of Americans are guilty of voting based on insufficient knowledge and research on the candidates, their history and their positions. I pay little to no attention at this point to any sort of advertising around candidates.
        That said, I think you make a too real point – the real issue here is that campaign contributions in this sense influence politics not by skewing advertising etc, but by preventing some candidates from running in the first place. Nowadays it takes such a large amount of money to run for a major public office and sway party politics to the point where a person gets on the ballot that any sort of fridge viewpoints are cut out entirely, leaving us with the candidates which are considered safest by the greatest common denominator.

  12. Kibit says:

    Shocking!

    /sarcasm

  13. econobiker says:

    Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations shall perish the people’s rights from the government but still hold individual persons responsible for his or her debts to the corporations.

    Sorry about screwing up this quote of yours, Mr. Lincoln.

    “Teddy Roosevelt, where are you now?”

  14. Mold says:

    Corps out-donate unions by significant amounts. Love how some pretend eveel unionists skew the political process but ignore the far greater harm of ‘individual’ contributions from corporate interests. And yes, the CEO makes it quite clear your position is dependent on hwo much you give to his ’cause’.
    The personhood of corporations was a legal fiction introduced by a corporate clerk.
    Odd how the Court became judicial activationists with bush’s appointment….Citizens…
    Stare decisis only applies to Liberals.

  15. Chaosium says:

    People should seriously always refer to Citizens United by their actual name, C.U.N.T.

    I’m not kidding, that was their initial, intentionally chosen name, Citizens United Not Timid. It was referring to Hillary, which the founders apparently hated.

    http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2008/01/24/roger_stone

  16. ThunderRoad says:

    Congress – the best politicians that money can buy.

  17. bite back says:

    “The answer is obvious. Instead of complaining about corporations perverting our democracy, average Americans should buckle down and make more money so they can out-contribute them.”

    That answer is obviously WRONG. We need to go to public financing of elections.

    Or, do you think you’ll be joining the overpaid ranks of the hedge fund managers, where the top 25 earners were paid a collective $25.3 billion in 2009? If these people pooled just 10% of their pay, they would have outspent all campaign spending for the last presidential race.

  18. Bsamm09 says:

    We should ban all union donations. At least the corps are more equal in their donations.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=L

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      Banning speech of only one group of people? Why do you hate America?

    • Chaosium says:

      “We should ban all union donations. At least the corps are more equal in their donations.”

      Hahaahahhaha, if corporations are “people” and money is speech banning unions would be unconstitutional.

      Lrn2Constitution.

    • danic512 says:

      Those are only reported contributions. The whole complaint is about those contributions that aren’t reported… Thanks for following along, and I’m glad to see you hate labor protections!

  19. Bsamm09 says:

    “Let’s not forget: the corporation, as an institution, was conceived solely to avoid personal responsibility for poor business decisions. That is the ONLY reason businesses incorporate; so that the real human beings in charge can’t be held responsible if the business fails before it pays off its debts or if somebody dies as a direct result of a corporate decision or action.”

    Wrong. Corps exists so passive owners (shareholders) can actually (own) invest in the company and have limited liability. Would you ever buy stock if you could be responsible for more than your investment when you have no role in the company.

  20. JonStewartMill says:

    If you like that, you’ll LOVE the GOP’s plan to end public financing of Presidential elections . They announced that “it’s broken” and instead of proposing a fix, they want to do away with it. Kind of like taking your car to the mechanic and having him tell you “Your antilock brake system was broken so I removed it.”

  21. PsiCop says:

    This Supreme Court was necessary, because there wasn’t enough plunder — er, money — in politics already. I mean, it wasn’t enough that politicians already had unions and special-interest groups and PACs off of which they could freely feed. It wasn’t enough that they had millions of dollars to spend in pork-barrel projects, or thousands of appointments to issue to pay off all those bribes — er, contributions. Oh no. The Supremes knew these poor wretched creatures were starving for lack of money.

    So they happily opened up a new avenue to dump even more cash into the system. We can’t have any cash-starved politicians, after all … they absolutely need all the money they can get their greedy hands on. It’s America’s latest entitlement program!!!

  22. NeverLetMeDown says:

    You should do a find and replace of “corporations” for “corporations and unions.” The #1 spender of campaign money this cycle was AFSCME (state and local employee union).

    • Maximus Pectoralis says:

      For state elections, New Jersey has political spending contributions of $20k for any organization that does work with state government. Unions, of course are exempt. The state teachers union (NJEA) was the second biggest political spender in the 2009 election with over $9 million in contributions. The biggest was the incumbent governor himself, a wealthy wall-street banker and Democrat candidate who spent almost $16 million.

      The state is facing massive budget shortfalls due to exceedingly generous pay and benefits given to public employee unions. Any coincidence?

  23. oldwiz65 says:

    So now they can simply openly buy politicians rather than having to do it under the table. There are no honest politicians left in the U.S. government. This is not news; it’s just now more obvious that Congress is totally corrupt.

  24. Mcshonky says:

    F you John G. Roberts, Jr.

    Shaking your head at Obama when he said this was a bad idea.

    You were proven wrong, you incompetent buffoon.

    I bet you’re at that big Republican’t pow wow this weekend lining your pockets.

    Corps are people but women can’t decide what to do with their own bodies?

    Oh and Thomas, you’re a crook too.

  25. Mcshonky says:

    F you John G. Roberts, Jr.

    Shaking your head at Obama when he said this was a bad idea.

    You were proven wrong, you incompetent buffoon.

    I bet you’re at that big Republican’t pow wow this weekend lining your pockets.

    Corps are people but women can’t decide what to do with their own bodies?

    Oh and Thomas, you’re a crook too.

  26. INsano says:

    Democracy is great! You get to vote, and if you’re rich, you get to vote and then influence the hell out of how other people do or don’t vote through your corporation.

  27. livingthedreamrtw says:

    I think corporate giving for politics is a way for the owners/leaders to give twice, or at the very least, give without using their personal income. Instead of using their own income, a corporation’s leaders can use the profits the employees generated. If a company is made up by its employees, and I worked for it, and found out they donated the profits that I helped generate to a cause I didnt support without asking, I would be beyond pissed.

  28. mydailydrunk says:

    The worst decision since Dred Scott, possibly worse, as it helps undermine the entire political system that can have global ramifications.

  29. skapig says:

    Corporations can’t vote…but they can contribute to campaigns with anonymity on top of that. Makes perfect sense!

    Corporations = people – accountability + big money to buy influence

  30. haggis for the soul says:

    LOL @ The Supreme Court assuming all citizens would bother to educate themselves.

  31. duncanblackthorne says:

    Why can’t they just make it the rule that everyone gets a set amount of money to spend on their campaign, and that’s it? Wouldn’t that level the playing field for everyone?

  32. mjconsumer says:

    I make my own gross perversions of democracy at home.

  33. YokoOhNo says:

    Can we finally start referring to them as “people” please…other terms are bigoted.